Fireworks

I'm baffled every year at the casual attitude towards what is quite simply an explosive. Those who peddle illegal fireworks should suffer the same punishment as iff they were peddling illegal weapons. As for the rest, if individuals really want to buy fireworks (and let's face it in terms of value for money any public display is going to be much better) then they should have to buy a license. £20 should cover it plus two forms of i.d. This will act as a disincentive to those who might be buying them for reasons outside of pleasing entertainment. It also means that sales can be tracked. Personally I would be happy to see fireworks banned from sale to all but organised events (which would also need to apply for a license).

Smacking is wrong

The Government once again turned down the opportunity to completely outlaw smacking of children claiming that it was okay as long as it didn't cause harm. Smacking involves hitting a child. The claim being that unlike adults who can be reasoned with, children require the threat (which sometimes has to be carried out) of physical punishment in order to ensure that they comply with a parental request. Firstly, it is perfectly possible to bring up children to be responsible and well-behaved without ever having to resort to physical punishment (it does however, require a degree of thought and effort). Secondly, if many parents still believe that it is okay to enforce behaviour in this way then why is this option not extended to teachers and other authority figures? If it is okay to smack children, but not adults, at what age does this distinction occur? In law, affray can be caused by motion towards, a smack on another adult would at the least be considered assault. It is never right to smack a child and all it does is teaches the child that bigger people can force smaller people to do what they want by force (don't be surprised then when older siblings smack younger ones, they are, after all, only following your example). Violence leads to violence and a civilised society should find it abhorent in all its forms.

Nearly all children are victims of crime

So says the paper this morning with figures released by the Howard League for Penal Reform. We should all be ashamed. That we live in a society where parents are allowed to abdicate responsibility for the moral upbringing of their children. That 'low level' crime is considered part of growing up. That schools are unable to enforce discipline and are not supported by parents or Government. That respect seems to be a dirty word and the call for equality means ignoring authority. If you are not part of the solution, then you are part of the problem. Everybody has a responsibility to address this situation and those that don't or won't need to be re-educated or marginalised.

Crime & punishment

If a child commits a crime that is likely to have them sent to prison, but they are under a certain age then their names are not allowed to be published. This is useless as a deterent. The crime and the punishment becomes abstract, but if the names were known then the local community would know who they were and would be able to put a face to the crime and more important the punishment.
I have written before at some length how I feel some kinds of crime should be punished, but there are other serious crimes that need to be taken into consideration. Surely every prisoner who goes into prison should have some form of psychlogoical examination. Some of the most serious offenders suffer from toxic memeory and if they have been sentenced to a long time in prison then there is the opportunity to give them expert help. The prison population needs to be reduced, not by just releasing people because of the lack of room but those people who shouldn't be there. The non-payment of fines, those that have a mental disorder who need medical help. Some alcohol related crimes should be sent to a specialist prison hospitals. This is not to give them a soft time as it will involve the coming off any addictions they may have, drugs drink and probably others that I dont know or wish to know which would undoubtedly be unpleasent.
The prison service needs a huge overhaul. The prison officers should be paid a lot more money. They should be given the opportunity to study for hihger criminal, socialwork and psychological quilifications. Actually create a proffesion of being a prison officer rather than a job.Their working conditions improved, but also the sentences for officers who transgress the law by muggling drugs, mobile phones etc. in to prison should be double that of a person on the outside. Any solicitor found smuggling should also be harshly sentenced as well as being disbarred. But more importantly the prison officers should be given the support of a team of psychologists who can regularly exam inmates and give the officers an updted report and an accuarte prognosis. This may go to help stop incidents before they happen but also as a warning for possible suicides. I don't mean one overwork psychiatrist who turns up every thursday for two hours but a proper team, of four or five well qualified professionals.Like the prison officers the inmates should be given the opportunity to study for qualifications that will help them on the outside, not the education they get now in how to be a better criminal.
We have to make up our mind as to what system we want, rehabilitation or revenge. Its one or the other. Prisoners need to be isolated from society, however they also need to be helped, but that doesn't mean tv or porn magazines and certainly not class A drugs. The idea of having small cells which leads to overcrowded prisons is useless. We need a decent system that treats prisoners as human beings but not as members of society. They have forgone that by committing a crime. They have to be punished but it also means that they need to be helped. A reoffender starts to get less priviledges. Crimes of violence get no privilidges at all. The idea of hard labour when people pointlessly do hard tasks, they used to break rocks into smaller and smaller bits for years on end, might stop them for reoffending. No one would want to go back.
Is this too harsh, yes I suppose it is, but an act of violence is not fun, it leaves the victim traumatised and sometimes they are unable to carry on a normal life, become a prisoner of their own fears. It goes back to the names being shown and the crime being made human. Violence isn't abstract and in the 21st Century its outdated and unnaccetable.

Recycling

I agree with the previous posting about looking to Europe as a guide to recycling. In Belgium ( yes again) there is a school that has been designed with movable walls, so that in the Summer the classes can be opened up to make cooler and in Winter the reverse happens, but the clever thing is that they use the heat from the kids running about during the day to heat the school rooms. I look at some of the schools in this country and I am amazed that some still have pre-war radiators that send any hot air straight out of the window. If we are going to take recycling in this country at all seriously then we should be charged for the bags we put out, but also if it was worked out on the average per house, then a rebate could be given for the amount of green bags put out.
My council, bless their unbleached fair trade cotton socks are really good, we have the paper, glass and tins box, though this is far too small to cope with the amount of newspapers and junk mail we get through in a week and once a fortnight we get a gardening recycling collection, by far the most useful, but this could be improved by the design of a municipal recycling bin that would seperate and store until the collection. At the moment I have to collect the plastic cartons and packaging and then go to the tip. Surely if we want to get ahead of the recycling regime then there has to be an incentive all round.
I like the comment that house builders don't like putting in green products like solar panels because it is too expensive, well guess what its the law. All new builds have to be energy effecient, and in my mind that means solar panels. So would someone like to tell me why there hasn't been one prosecution lately? With house prices the way they are, I cannot believe that builders are cutting costs to the bone so lets have a few more energy effecient and green houses.
Also the government are very good at telling us to get on the green bandwagon, so lets start seeing some of the ministers cars using bio fuels, converted diesel engines that use vegetable oils and some form of legislation which means that if a new car is sold the owner would have the opportunity to have the car converted to bio fuel at no extra cost to themselves, and the manufacturer would be able to get a tax refund on that car.
Putting tax on things to prevent people buying them has never worked. When I smoked the increase on cigarettes never stopped me, so why should anybody stop using their car if petrol goes up. It should be positive and negative together. Tax rebates that follow the green line and tax increases for those that don't. Then maybe the car manufacturers and the fuel companies would start thinking about the alternatives. Its not rocket science is it?
We have to look to Europe, for example in Germany all taps are fitted with their own little stop valve, so that if a washer need replacing, you don't have to turn off the whole water system, including the pilot light for the central heating etc.etc. but just a little twist and the water is cut off from that one tap enabling you to change the washer or whatever. Its simple things like that that make it easier for everybody. Its easier to replace the washer for the plumber, for you and me. If you know its going to be a pain then we all leave a job until it finally gets out of hand and its going to cost a lot to repair. Imagine the water lost from a dripping tap over a week, a month two months. Its the small things that make the difference.
Try buying milk from a milkman, who delivers. Generally they use the most local herds and deliver in an electric vehicle. Its a small thing but agin if all the small things were put end to end, some corporation would charge rent for its going on their land.
Benjamin Franklin once said that
"for the want of anail the shoe was lost,
for the want of the shoe the horse was lost
for the want of the horse the rider was lost
for the want of the rider the message was lost
for the want of the message the battle was lost
for the want of the battle the war was lost
all for the wamnt of a horseshoe nail"
If you think in terms of global warming which has become rebranded as climate change it the small things that make the difference. I rest my case.

Who to vote for?

Some time ago Chris and I sent our manifesto to the Liberal Democrats along with some suggestions for campaigning at the next election. we are not members and both have a history of voting for other parties at times. However, we also both sensed a merging (to the right) of the Labour and Tory parties, along with an apparently media lead campaign to reduce politics to a simple two way battle. We were lucky enough to be invited to speak to Ed Davey and travelled to london to explain our concerns. It seems likely that a general election will be called before the end of the year and so we have to start thinking about who we should vote for (at this point I will refer only to my own views). In some areas there are clearly going to be two way splits, in others it may be three. I shall vote for the Liberal Democrats not out of support but out of protest. However, I wish it was out of support as the LDs have an opportunity to offer a real, substantive choice to the British electorate. Rather than worry about health or education or law, let me refer only to one simple issue. At the next election, the winning party will not gain more than 38% of the votes. Probably with only 65% of the electorate voting. This means that less than 28% of those eligible to vote will vote for a Government that will then claim a mandate from the people and force through legislation that much of the population will not agree with. The Liberal Democrats are the only party who have promoted the idea of electoral reform and the possibility fo some kind of proportional representation. meaning that more people will be able to influence Government policy. For this reason if no other I will be voting for the Liberal democrats and I urge all other people who are not driven by support of a party when voting to consider this as their best option.

The age of criminal responsibility

I think this may have been referred to elsewhere but I mention it again because of an article in the paper today in which a judge refused to find a youth of 15 guilty of (I think it was) ABH because the judge felt the youth was too young to understand how dangerous it was to fire an air rifle at another person's face.

Excuse me while I walk away for a moment to find a quiet place to lie down for fear that my head might otherwise explode.

There, that's better. Let us revisit this. A four year old is able to understand that taking a biscuit without asking is wrong and will consequently lie when asked, even when their face is covered in melted chocolate. They understand the difference between right and wrong (no I'm not suggesting we prosecute 4 year olds). As an adult I cannot claim I didn't realise how serious my action was as a way of mitigating my action (or perhaps I can). What did the youth in question think would happen? Have we bred a generation compleetly incapable of empathising, or at least putting themselves in the shoes of others? Perhaps if we assume the worst and work backwards this would discourage people. For example, let's assume that if I jump on someone's head it is only a matter of luck if I don't kill them, that is, I should expect that jumping on their head will kill them. Consequently I should be charged with attempted murder. Given that health and safety is quite widespread and that most people would understand the concept of risk assessment it follows that we could draw up a list of actions and consequences so that the laws can be based on what might happen. If people truely understood how easy it is to kill someone by smashing a ton of metal into them, perhaps they might be more inclined to drive with due care and attention.

What should the age of criminal responsibility be? Clearly this is something that should be considered carefully by an appropriate range of people. I'm inclined to suggest 12, with parents being prosecuted for the crimes of those under 12. Of course I would also introduce a curfew so that anyone under the age of 12 could not be out on their own after 7.30, since to allow this to happen would seem to be negligence on the part of the parent. The most difficult group are the 13-17 year olds and whilst I think the police should have greater powers to deal with gangs of youths (if we can capure them on film then why can't they be arrested and prosecuted?), I also think that central and local government has a responsibility to offer young people an alternative to hanging around on street corners (youth clubs, community centres, scouts, guides etc.)